Why I dislike Milestone XP

[iserith]

I'm not the one talking about "punishment". You and some other posters are.

You could still answer the question from your point of view. Do you see that as punishment?

But if it's a team based game and level advancement is continues from session to session, then it would certainly seem to be less enjoyable for the person who cannot make every game session and falls farther and farther behind the rest of their team. Not a "punishment" per se, but certainly a less enjoyable play experience for both them, and possibly for their team.

Now if you are one of those hyper-competitive people who are always measuring themselves against their friends and teammates, then it probably more enjoyable for you to be able to lord your extra progress over the people who can't play as often as you. Dealing with that could be seen as "punishment" for your lower level teammates, I supposed.

I think it could be seen as less enjoyable by some people, but I would not say it was certain. I would also say, as I do upthread, that it's not as important mechanically that every PC be the same level. It was in D&D 4e, for example, but D&D 5e is much more forgiving in this regard and catching up is pretty fast in my experience. But there may be other good reasons why the group may want everyone the same level. Any ideas on why that may be?

My experience with the standard XP system and a player pool (and character pool) is that character levels vary a bit and that players of higher-level characters help the lower-level characters out with resources and equipment to get them on their feet. I haven't seen any of this "lording" extra progress over others. I don't doubt it happens though, given how nasty some gamers can be.

 

[Bradley Hindman]

I'm not a big video game player, but I bet many of you are. Do you know of any video games wherein you advance in the game by leaving the game cartridge or disc on the shelf and doing something else? Do video game producers get angry letters from their customers about how they are being punished for not advancing in the game when they're not actually playing it?

This isn't a criticism of leveling everyone up at the same time even if they don't play. That certainly works if you think there's value in having all the PCs be the same level. It's just perhaps a way to look critically at the assertion that not getting levels when you don't show up is some kind of punishment. Why might it be seen this way in D&D, but perhaps not in a D&D-like video game?

Perhaps because many (players & DMs) view D&D primarily as a cooperative social game instead of a competitive one. Players succeed or fail as a group. To such players singling out any character to receive less of the spoils seems like a punishment. A system where XP are given only to those who show up can be equally viewed as a reward or as a punishment. Just depends on the personality and viewpoint of the player in question.

 

[iserith]

Perhaps because many (players & DMs) view D&D primarily as a cooperative social game instead of a competitive one. Players succeed or fail as a group. To such players singling out any character to receive less of the spoils seems like a punishment. A system where XP are given only to those who show up can be equally viewed as a reward or as a punishment. Just depends on the personality and viewpoint of the player in question.

Is it actually competitive though to reward XP only to players who show up? It still seems like a cooperative game to me even with that being the advancement system in place. What makes it competitive between the players when standard XP is used as the approach?

 

[Bradley Hindman]

Is it actually competitive though to reward XP only to players who show up? It still seems like a cooperative game to me even with that being the advancement system in place. What makes it competitive between the players when standard XP is used as the approach?

Let me turn the question around. If it isn't a competition, why are we keeping track? I don't necessarily advocate this position. But, I can understand why some would feel that way.

 

[iserith]

Let me turn the question around. If it isn't a competition, why are we keeping track? I don't necessarily advocate this position. But, I can understand why some would feel that way.

I would say the burden of proof is on those making the assertion.

I don't assert that standard XP somehow makes the game into a competition between players. Nor do you, I guess. It's on those who do to show this. My position is that there are some good reasons to use other means of character advancement, but the assertion that standard XP somehow turns the game competitive instead of cooperative or that it's a punishment for non-attendance are bad arguments that should probably be abandoned.

 

[Satyrn]

"...after I got the item and learned the new trick, I beat him to death with his own magic pipe and double-dipped in his XP. Good times."

Reminds of that one time I paid a cleric to heal my wounds, then trampled him to death under my horse's hooves and took my gold back . . .


. . . never has D&D felt more like a video game!

 

[Mercule]

Is it actually competitive though to reward XP only to players who show up? It still seems like a cooperative game to me even with that being the advancement system in place. What makes it competitive between the players when standard XP is used as the approach?

It's punitive to withhold XP from the player whose wife is at home vomiting or who got sucked into mandatory overtime, this week. There's no fun in being forced to miss your recreational activity and to then be penalized by your friends for missing it, as well.

If you've got players that don't show up for your game because they've decided to go see the latest movie or because their WoW guild decided to do a raid (true story) or otherwise treat showing up to the game as something other than a commitment to the others at the table, then, by all means, feel free to withhold the XP. Better yet, give them the boot. As a general rule, I don't play with flakes.

Otherwise, you treat the others at the table with respect and accept that life sometimes happens.

 

[JonnyP71]

Thank you for posting this. Sometimes I forget how lucky I am to have players who aren't continually trying to compete with or one-up the other players. (Their characters do stuff like this all the time, but the players don't - an important difference.)

Then I read things like this and I really appreciate the fact that my players don't act like judgmental, spoiled children.

And neither do I, nor my players (as I DM far more than I play).

Our game is very episodic, usually short 2-3 session adventures - we ware working towards a big finale gradually.

My players each have a 'pool' of 4 characters. All characters begin at level 1. No exceptions. They choose which they want to use for each adventure/session... those present get xp for that session. If a character dies they get nothing for the session, and are unavailable to the player until the characters is raised. Current available PCs range from level 4 up to level 11. Very simple, it works just fine.

This is the way D&D was played in the 'olden days', this is how I prefer my D&D still to be...

 

[5ekyu]

Sometime me and my friends get together to play munchkin. We dont consider who should start at level 1 and who should start at level 2 or 3 based on previous absences.

Sometimes we get tigether to play poker. We dont decide who gets two hole cards and who gets one based on recent attendance.

Sometimes we get together for movies. We dont decide who can stay and watch the full film and who has to leave 15m before the end based on recent experience.

Sometimes we get together and play rpgs. Care to guess whether we see it as right to decide who plays at what level based on attendance?

In none of those other activities do we see dividing into haves and have lesses based on attendance as a plus.

In none of those activities do we see "if you show up this week, we will give you more than others for next week" as a needed or helpful "incentive" or "punishment."

Now of course, some might say its not a big thing, hardly a thing at all, to be a level down or up... But then that undercuts the whole incentive thing.

If it helps tour activities - great.

But for some/many it doesnt.

 

[Staccat0]

I have been using milestones for over a decade but recently came back around to XP. In my newest campaign XP has been a pretty useful carrot and has created interesting decision points. It's pretty specific though. My players are members of a school that awards XP and requires tuition (GP) to level up. Caring about gold also means caring about gear so we started using a light encumbrance system. There are also bonuses for finishing quests quickly so we track time using a light system I have cooked up.

It wouldn't work in every campaign, but in my campaign the players (who all started with 5e and previously never had to care about XP, GP or encumbrance) have really enjoyed it and have talked a lot about how now every decision matters a lot. Even random encounters with a patrol of skeleton guards feel like they matter.

"Do we wanna fight? We have plenty of XP for this next level, but we're short on gold. Let's figure out if they have gold before they engage. We don't have time for a long rest, so we need to play it safe. Maybe we shouldn't have bought a donkey."

My initial instincts were that tracking stuff would bog things down, and that my players (who mostly just wanna make jokes and get into shenanigans) would hate it. I've found though that it's made the game feel like an adventure again.